Slashdot Mirror
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
An anonymous reader writes "Citing privacy concerns, the Cambridge, Mass. City Council has voted 9-0 to remove security cameras scattered throughout the city. 'Because of the slow erosion of our civil liberties since 9/11, it is important to raise questions regarding these cameras,' said Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge city councilor. Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'"
Where's the tag!?
libertarian: (n) socially liberal, financially conservative; neither left, nor right.
The people who are going to be dismantling them and removing them are probably not doing the job for free.
It good to hear that at least one city council has worked up enough back-bone to stand up to law enforcement on this issue. I hope the Chicago City Council comes to a similar conclusion and convenience Mayor Daley that this is a waste of money and shut our surveillance system down in lieu of hiring more officers, if necessary. Unfortunately Mayor Daley pushes public surveillance pretty hard.
Remove? Um. Simply turn them off.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
They could have said "City's Move To Nix Security Cams May KILL YOUR CHILDREN!"
I mean, remember poor Caylee?
But isn't that offset from the cost of maintaining and watching the camera network?
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Once maybe. If you do it systematically, it becomes stalking and/or grounds for a restraining order.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Additionally, often things like city wide security and red light cammeras are not monitored by actual government employees but companies sub-contracted out to do the job. Canceling the contract generally has a penalty involved.
I'm assuming you're a private citizen, so you most likely don't have the power or the resources to abuse this system in quite the same capacity that the government has the ability to. Government and is priorities constantly change.
That's not really the issue, and you've missed the point.
There is a wide gulf between having no expectation of privacy and accepting a surveillance culture.
Installing camera system: $264,000
Turning them off and leaving in place: $0
Big brother not watching you anymore: priceless
Then I think the "right to privacy" route is the wrong track to take. Instead, any removal should be based on protections from abuse. Otherwise you begin to trample on "rights" in the other direction, ie. How long before it is an invasion to take pictures in public if others are captured in your image. It's all about a good balance.
Cambridge, Mass. Moves To Nix Security Cameras
Did anyone else think this meant they were installing security cameras running BSD?
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
The cameras were bought with a DHS grant, which my have to be repaid.
It isn't stated explicitly, but it appears that the city used part of the grant already to install the first few cameras.
It isn't that the physical removal will cost money, but that they may have to reimburse the feds for the grant money now that they have opted out of the program.
Also, this is not certain -- which is why it "may" cost thousands.
Cambridge MA is full of a bunch of nerds and malnourished artist types.
And apparently, 9 Al-Qaeda operatives on city council.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You forgot:
Tell people we're turning them off: $0
Raise taxes to pay for the cost of operating them in secret: $0 (it ain't *their* money!)
Still using cameras to spy on law abiding americans: priceless
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Because it would be easy for the government to cherry pick a few shots of you at certain times and use them as evidence to convince a stupid jury that you broke a law.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." - Cardinal Richelieu
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think...
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
I agree. Another point which is of paramount importance: who's in control? Why not take the camera's and make them viewable by all, with a backlog of several days? Let people use them as well. Increase social control. Or would this cause some kind of backlash? One could imagine, for instance, dominant insecure alpha men continually tracking their wives as they go shopping and whatnot, while the wives are oblivious. And everyone tells little white lies about where they've been (some not so white, of course). But would that lead to an increase in domestic violence? Or would it mean more crimes would be solved, since more eyes are tracking the streets? Should you take a halfway stance, that only registered users - and ones with a clean police bill - are allowed to use them? My $ 0.02
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Why don't they just deactivate them and leave them in place? That shouldn't cost too much, I wouldn't think...
Yeah, it's not like some bored MIT students would figure out how to hack into them and have their own little surveillance network...
This guy's the limit!
Just a thought, and maybe my tin-foil hat is too snug, but could the local govt find themselves removing these cams because the _police_ didn't like the notion that _they_ might be filmed in public doing things they shouldn't do, like, I dunno, beating protesters? I'm not saying that's happened, but where's the outrage from the police and the protestations that they need these cameras to "protect teh childrenz"?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Nope. I can record you every day. and in fact I do to some people, without legal issues.
There is a bus stop in front of my home, one of my security cameras cover that area and I record every person that get's on and off the bus. (motion recording is passe' record 24-7 and have event markers)
so wah! and yes I have been asked for video from the cops. I require them to supeona me for my own legal defense.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
bceause the "gubmint" is in a conspiracy to frame you
Uh, after enough police scandals, prosecutors knowingly prosecuting innocent people (withholding exculpatory evidence showing that the person did not commit the crime) and D.A.s declaring that they only believe in DNA evidence when it claims a man is guilty but not when it shows that the accused was either of the two men who raped a woman... I think its fair to say that the people in government are more than happy to frame anyone they wish.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Speak for yourself.
My interior security cameras at the house trigger the alarm and page me when motion is detected in zones if the alarm is armed. They also were successfully used as evidence to put away the punk that robbed me. Thieves are brain dead and will look directly at cameras.
also the driveway camera triggers the doorbell if a car sized object enters the driveway.
Security cameras are very useful and work great.
PUBLIC security cameras are useless except for government violation of civil rights.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Oh hello, this is the UK. I say, would you mind lending us some of your politicians? We'd be very much obliged.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Massachusetts isn't going to let you in with an M4.
Or a Light Brite.